update_slide

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the single most important trait: the elements array is replaced entirely rather than merged, which is a destructive-adjacent behavior an agent must know. It still omits permissions/ownership requirements and what happens to elements not re-supplied, keeping it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and the critical replace behavior, then a scannable rules block. Slightly padded by design rules for font and text color that do not correspond to any input parameter.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover the mutation's consequences; it covers the replace semantics but not ownership/permission requirements or failure modes. For a four-parameter mutation tool this is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The 'design rules' block restates the backgroundColor constraint already present in the schema ('ALWAYS "default"') and mentions font/text color that are not parameters at all, adding no semantic value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a slide's content') and clarifies scope by noting the elements array is replaced entirely, which distinguishes it from add_slide_from_template or update_presentation. It never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from the tool list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus add_slide_from_template, delete_slide, or update_presentation, nor any precondition (e.g., slide must already exist). The replace-semantics sentence hints at usage but is behavioral, not routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.